Astrotripper

Joined on Jul 12, 2013

Comments

Total: 311, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Soo, what's wrong with the mechanical shutter that the specs regarding it were not released?

20 fps is all fine and dandy until you look at the footnotes. Not to mention it's just 2 fps more than E-M1 Mark II.

Also, did Sony do something about rolling shutter? It is pretty severe even on their APS-C cameras, worse than competition. It really needs to be better than that if they are pushing it as the main feature.

Yeah, I just looked into the full specs on Sony website. 5 fps. WOW.

There are only three options now:
1. The specs contain an error
2. This is a joke
3. This electronic shutter in a9 is truly revolutional

I certainly do hope for 3, but with Sony, I will believe it when I see it and not a second sooner.

As for actual sport shooting cameras, they do 12 fps as far as I know. Boostable to 14fps with some tricks, I think.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but using electronic shutter for shooting fast moving action under artificial lighting of sporting venues sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. It really needs to be very, very close to a speed of a mechanical shutter to be a viable alternative.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 21:12 UTC
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Soo, what's wrong with the mechanical shutter that the specs regarding it were not released?

20 fps is all fine and dandy until you look at the footnotes. Not to mention it's just 2 fps more than E-M1 Mark II.

Also, did Sony do something about rolling shutter? It is pretty severe even on their APS-C cameras, worse than competition. It really needs to be better than that if they are pushing it as the main feature.

I remember hearing the same regarding A6500. Turned out to be a lot of hype.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 20:34 UTC

Soo, what's wrong with the mechanical shutter that the specs regarding it were not released?

20 fps is all fine and dandy until you look at the footnotes. Not to mention it's just 2 fps more than E-M1 Mark II.

Also, did Sony do something about rolling shutter? It is pretty severe even on their APS-C cameras, worse than competition. It really needs to be better than that if they are pushing it as the main feature.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 20:15 UTC as 102nd comment | 6 replies

Fuji is on fire :-)

By now I'm pretty certain that this UWA will be very impressive. Hope Hassy will give Fuji some competition with their own new releases as well. Intetesting times either way.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 08:48 UTC as 19th comment
On article Fujifilm GF 120mm F4 Macro sample gallery (111 comments in total)

Those new medium format lenses are amazing. This is no exception.

But what does Fuji have against macro lenses? This is yet another Fuji "macro" lens that isn't all that macro. Why not 1:1?

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 18:07 UTC as 7th comment | 8 replies
On article CP+ 2017: Olympus interview: 'We chose to be bold' (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

Astrotripper: The "we are mainly stills-oriented" mantra needs to end right now. It is damaging and dangerous. It's not a message you want to broadcast to the world. Unless you want to slip into irrelevance.

I get it. They know their strengths and have their priorities. But acting as if video is something that can still be treated as a necessary evil is suicidal. And not to mention this attitude sells short the efforts of Olympus engineers who did a pretty fine job of making sure Olympus has a camera with usable video in their lineup. And it was about time. It was really a last chance for Oly to catch up.

Case in point: I would absolutely not have bought E-M1 Mark II if it had not provided decent video recording capability. And I am both a stills shooter and Olympus user. But as it turns out, shooting video is actually pretty fun. I think so far I have spent more time filming with it than taking photos.

Still, I expect improvements to video side of things during the lifetime of the Mark II. AF...

@Karroly
How does the inclusion of video features on E-M1 Mark II make it a worse stills camera? Can you tell us?

And why on earth would you think that a specialised niche product like a stills-only camera would be less expensive?

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2017 at 07:10 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Olympus interview: 'We chose to be bold' (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

Astrotripper: The "we are mainly stills-oriented" mantra needs to end right now. It is damaging and dangerous. It's not a message you want to broadcast to the world. Unless you want to slip into irrelevance.

I get it. They know their strengths and have their priorities. But acting as if video is something that can still be treated as a necessary evil is suicidal. And not to mention this attitude sells short the efforts of Olympus engineers who did a pretty fine job of making sure Olympus has a camera with usable video in their lineup. And it was about time. It was really a last chance for Oly to catch up.

Case in point: I would absolutely not have bought E-M1 Mark II if it had not provided decent video recording capability. And I am both a stills shooter and Olympus user. But as it turns out, shooting video is actually pretty fun. I think so far I have spent more time filming with it than taking photos.

Still, I expect improvements to video side of things during the lifetime of the Mark II. AF...

You completely missed my point. I do not expect Olympus to create a professional grade video equipment. Nor do I want them to. I do not expect the same level of video capability as Panasonic offers. And I'm not asking for it. It's about the attitude demonstrated publicly.

This is 2017. You cannot just brush the video aspects aside and pretend it does not matter. And it's pretty obvious looking at E-M1.2 that Olympus is not stupid enough to do that. But then why repeating the "we're for stills" mantra? What good does repeating this do apart from communicating to the world that you think video does not matter much. And that while you add competent video capabilities to your cameras?

IMHO, it will do Olympus no good, boxing themselves like that.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 22:06 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Olympus interview: 'We chose to be bold' (350 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jefftan: E-M1 II biggest issue to me is not price but weight
with the 12-100 lens or even without
it is not lightweight by any standard

actually quite heavy, so why MFT
Olympus must decrease the weight of camera to make me a customer
400 gram maximum, the lighter the better

I am sure I am not alone, this is the reason to use MFT for many

Try using the 12-100, 100-300, 100-400 or 40-150 on a small body like GM5 or even E-M10 and get back to us after, alright?

Seriously, this notion is quite ridiculous. There are plenty of MFT cameras and lenses that are much smaller and lighter, so where's the problem? You want a smaller and lighter MFT camera? Just buy it. Last time I checked neither GH5 nor E-M1.2 devour smaller cameras that sit on the shelves near them.

I always carry my GM5 with one of the tiny primes with me. But I am not gonna use it with 100-300mm super telephoto. Much less a more serious tele like the 100-400mm, 300mm f/4 or adapted super teles like Canon's L glass.

While I wish the Mark II was a bit smaller (would better fit my hands), the weight is not an issue. It is much, much more comfortable in use with the 100-300mm. I can get sharp shots with it handheld at ridiculously slow shutter speeds, and I can shoot a pretty stable video at 600mm equivalent.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 19:57 UTC
On article CP+ 2017: Olympus interview: 'We chose to be bold' (350 comments in total)

The "we are mainly stills-oriented" mantra needs to end right now. It is damaging and dangerous. It's not a message you want to broadcast to the world. Unless you want to slip into irrelevance.

I get it. They know their strengths and have their priorities. But acting as if video is something that can still be treated as a necessary evil is suicidal. And not to mention this attitude sells short the efforts of Olympus engineers who did a pretty fine job of making sure Olympus has a camera with usable video in their lineup. And it was about time. It was really a last chance for Oly to catch up.

Case in point: I would absolutely not have bought E-M1 Mark II if it had not provided decent video recording capability. And I am both a stills shooter and Olympus user. But as it turns out, shooting video is actually pretty fun. I think so far I have spent more time filming with it than taking photos.

Still, I expect improvements to video side of things during the lifetime of the Mark II. AF...

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 19:44 UTC as 30th comment | 9 replies
On article Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5 Review (1159 comments in total)
In reply to:

snapa: It still amazes me how a 'm4/3' camera can cost $2,000 (without any lens), and be considered such a great camera. Once you start adding Pro lenses, then think about how well the IQ is at higher ISO levels with still pictures, it does not make any sense to me.

Maybe if you are looking for a very good 'video camera', it would be a good solution to your problem if you are looking to get very good videos. Still, to me, a m4/3 sensor camera for $4-5,000 (with lenses) that take just OK still pictures seems like quite a bit of money to me IMO, considering its competition with larger senor cameras.

BTW, how may professional videographers seriously look to buy a m4/3 cameras for taking serious video?

@ProfHankD
A6500 is only 300 EUR cheaper (450 EUR if it's on sale), does not do 10-bit 4:2:2 internal, has horrible rolling shutter, cannot record over 30 minutes, overheats, has terrible battery life, cannot be used in bright daylight without an external monitor and the stabilisation is worse than any of the MFT options.

It does have excellent video AF, which is really the only good thing it has going on for it.

In short, A6500 is a very expensive camera for amateur use. You have to have a lot of dedication and do non-critical work to solely rely on such an unreliable camera.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 08:55 UTC

People are often wondering who needs 8K.

This is the answer. Even 4K is not enough to make good quality 360 video. This looks pretty ok, much better than earlier attempts, but it is still some way from being actually good.

Link | Posted on Apr 11, 2017 at 07:41 UTC as 6th comment | 3 replies

Haha, so Nikon saw what happened to Panasonic and decided to announce it themselves before the public went on to spuriously decide for themselves that they are dismantling the lens division and leaving the market altogether.

Good move :-)

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2017 at 19:38 UTC as 40th comment | 1 reply
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Sounds like Sigma of MF mirrorless cameras. Slow and bare-bones. I enjoyed shooting with my little Merrill, though (best shutter button ever, BTW).

It's not necessarily bad. Or at least it wouldn't be if not for the ~10 second startup time (woooot?). That's a bit much.

Personally, I like the Hassy concept better. And I was more impressed by what I saw from their lenses than Fuji's. But it looks like it really needs some refinements. An MF camera this small could really be nice for shooting scenarios normally not associated with MF cameras.

And Hassy already has some not too shabby lenses that could be used, including fairly long telephoto. They just need to add AF support to the adapter for full experience.

I'd dig that camera if I were some Silicon Valley yuppie with money to burn. Maybe if I win a lottery and decide to show off a bit :-)

Thanks for pointing those out. I was not aware that the zoom lens for GFX was already in the wild. Very impressive performance.

Just to be clear, I was not trying to say that Fuji lenses are bad or anything like that. I just found myself more impressed with Hassy wide open, that's all (it was based on initial shots from the first primes, if I remember correctly). I think both punch above the level of 35mm format cameras, though.

BTW, I find the whole equivalence bashing of those cameras hilarious.

And I'm looking forward for both Hassy and Fuji developing their new systems. There's nothing better than good old competition. Maybe one day I will be able to afford one of those. I mean, 5 years ago the prospect of buying new MF kit for less than $20k or whatever was unreal. And not it's possible under $10k. It's gonna be interesting to see what happens in next 5 years :-)

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2017 at 19:15 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)

Sounds like Sigma of MF mirrorless cameras. Slow and bare-bones. I enjoyed shooting with my little Merrill, though (best shutter button ever, BTW).

It's not necessarily bad. Or at least it wouldn't be if not for the ~10 second startup time (woooot?). That's a bit much.

Personally, I like the Hassy concept better. And I was more impressed by what I saw from their lenses than Fuji's. But it looks like it really needs some refinements. An MF camera this small could really be nice for shooting scenarios normally not associated with MF cameras.

And Hassy already has some not too shabby lenses that could be used, including fairly long telephoto. They just need to add AF support to the adapter for full experience.

I'd dig that camera if I were some Silicon Valley yuppie with money to burn. Maybe if I win a lottery and decide to show off a bit :-)

Link | Posted on Apr 3, 2017 at 17:22 UTC as 69th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Had LX-5, great little camera. I used this threaded lens barrel thingy to mount "macro conversion lenses" on it. That was my introduction to macro photography. Well, technically it was not real macro, but a combination of very small camera and very close focusing capability allowed for some interesting shots.

And as an ex-user of LX-5, I was immensely disappointed with Panasonic throwing away the LX legacy with LX-10.

It's sad, seeing a leader becoming another "me too" follower :-(

Just to be clear. For me, LX legacy means features for advanced, "serious" users. Things like proper flash or ability to take filters and/or some other accessories (EVF/OVF, etc.) and at least some grip for ease of use. Multi-aspect sensor was a nice feature as well, preserved in LX100.

For me, LX10 is just a TZ100 with a different lens. And that "fast lens" LX10 has is mostly a marketing gimmick, unfortunately. f/1.4 isn't really that big of a deal once you realize that just zooming in from 24 to 30mm equivalent lands you at f/2.8.

And to be clear, I'm also not saying LX10 is a bad camera. It's just that it sticks like a sore thumb among all the other LX models. And it should stick out from other 1-inch compacts it's competing with. And it doesn't, really.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 18:05 UTC
In reply to:

Astrotripper: Had LX-5, great little camera. I used this threaded lens barrel thingy to mount "macro conversion lenses" on it. That was my introduction to macro photography. Well, technically it was not real macro, but a combination of very small camera and very close focusing capability allowed for some interesting shots.

And as an ex-user of LX-5, I was immensely disappointed with Panasonic throwing away the LX legacy with LX-10.

It's sad, seeing a leader becoming another "me too" follower :-(

Sure, after all, it has a larger sensor and is a much newer camera. But it has none of the things that made previous LX cameras so special. It's just yet another "me too" RX100 clone.

At least Panasonic kept LX legacy alive with LX100. But that is a much larger camera.

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 07:16 UTC

Had LX-5, great little camera. I used this threaded lens barrel thingy to mount "macro conversion lenses" on it. That was my introduction to macro photography. Well, technically it was not real macro, but a combination of very small camera and very close focusing capability allowed for some interesting shots.

And as an ex-user of LX-5, I was immensely disappointed with Panasonic throwing away the LX legacy with LX-10.

It's sad, seeing a leader becoming another "me too" follower :-(

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2017 at 12:59 UTC as 76th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

bryanbrun: How many people need a medium format camera to "earning a living selling very large prints in galleries or juried art festivals."

What is that maybe 1,000 to 2,000 people in the entire United States?

A great camera for that .00000001 percent of the market.

@bryanbrun

How many people actually need FF camera anyways? 99% of them do not make a living off of using it anyways, and an iPhone can take photos as well, and share it much easier. And well over 90% of what FF users put out is just more of boring, bland, uninteresting, overprocessed, cliche "me too" shots. Why do they even bother taking those photos?

And so on. You get the picture (or maybe not).

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 18:21 UTC
On article LG G6 comes with dual-cam and 18:9 FullVision display (69 comments in total)

Is it daydream compatible?

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 at 19:15 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply

They looks pretty interesting, especially the 75 and 35mm ones.

I was about to complain about the lack of MFT version (which is not really an issue, plenty of Leica M adapters available) but then noticed the prices.

Still curious about their performance.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 at 19:11 UTC as 5th comment
Total: 311, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »